For all the wrong reasons, US Democratic candidates gain fans on the world stage

Question: What do these 3 things have in common?

Primeval World Diorama
Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln
The Carousel of Progress

If you are a distinguished scholar of the 1964-1965 New York World's Fair--or simply have access to Wikipedia--you would know that these were three of four attractions transferred to Disneyland parks after the event had closed its doors to the public.

The fourth? An attraction relatively unknown at the time, called It's a Small World. If there is anything that those half-adorable, half-creepy singing animatronic children have taught us, it is that contemporary societies are cognizant of the fact that globalization is putting more and more people into contact with each other. Distance is becoming less of a problem in today's world politics. It is now quite common to hear of mayors from Taiwan grabbing lunch with Argentinian senators in Buenos Aires coffeehouses. Whereas foreign policy may have been of secondary importance to governments of the past, it is no longer a simply a manner of binary states of war or peace, but intricate affairs that affect all levels of everyday life.

The Bush administration encounters incessant opposition both at home and abroad. As a result of the deterioration of civil dialogue with other countries, the American public is placing added significance on the country's relationship with global markets and foreign relations. Political pundits have gone so far as to call the 2008 presidential race the "foreign policy election."

Echoing Americans' concerns with foreign affairs in the upcoming election, foreign nationals all over the world are also concerned about the consequences of the election. Ever since Republican candidate John McCain secured the party's nomination, they have been polarized in their support for the remaining Democratic candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Interest in the contentious race has reached such fervor that a Belgian newspaper suggested that the rest of the world should be allowed to vote as well. From Swaziland to Sweden, internationals are taking sides as the entire world seems to be divided into Obama and Clinton countries.

The Colombian newspaper, El Colombiano, runs lengthy editorials expressing that country's near-unanimous support for Senator Clinton. Colombians tend to associate the Clinton name with the progress of their nation's economy, the War on Drugs, and a $1.3 billion U.S. aid package known as "Plan Colombia" from 2000. The Wall Street Journal reports that some Latin American citizens gravitate towards Clinton's foreign policy platform because they argue Obama's overly diplomatic stance may accentuate "security concerns."

Like Colombia, China also looks upon the Clinton name favorably. Even though Hillary has ratcheted up her rhetoric against the PRC in the wake of its response to Tibetan protests, she still has myriad Chinese benefactors and supporters behind her who hope that she will follow her husband's lead in free trade policy. Additionally, many Chinese citizens oppose Senator Obama because of his allegedly protectionist leanings.

While China and Colombia are overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton, countries such as Mexico are split down the center between the two candidates. The Los Angeles Times has reported that Clinton tends to carry the more affluent north and central-western regions of Mexico, while Obama finds his fan base in the nation's poorer heartland and southern regions.

Although Hillary appears to have a stranglehold on many East Asian and Latin American nations, Obama carries significant political support in Africa. To many, this comes as no surprise considering the Illinois senator has Kenyan roots. During his visits to the East African nation, he has been greeted again and again by roaring crowds packing streets and alleyways from Nairobi to Nasuru. Although some Africans may support Obama in the hope that America can reach the historical landmark of electing an African American president, others hope that if he were to win, he would foster a renewed interest in the African continent.

Obama's popularity is not merely contained to Africa; European nations like Germany have also been gripped with Obama-mania. Obama's opposition to the Iraq War echoes the sentiments of many Germans and other Europeans. Even recent comparisons between him and former President John F. Kennedy in national newspapers have stuck. John F. Kennedy has remained a figure oft-admired in Germany, especially in Berlin. Papers from The Berliner Morgenpost to the tabloid Bild have run recent headlines declaring Obama "The New Kennedy."

When comparing international support for the two Democratic candidates, it seems that the rationale remains questionable. It comes down to a simple problem that has plagued many American voters: they haven't thought things through. For example, Obama's protectionist stance may actually hurt many of the African nations that overwhelmingly back the Illinois senator. Most of their support seems to be based on blind association, from the nostalgia associated with the Clinton surname to Obama's ethnicity.

Some are blinder than others, however. The small fishing port of Obama, Japan has recently gained coverage both nationally and internationally for sharing the Illinois senator's name. Its residents seem to share the same enthusiasm that many of Americans have for his candidacy. Around the town, everything - from fish burgers to chopsticks - is sold with his name. Many of the residents of Obama, Japan hope the senator will choose to visit their town someday. Unfortunately, when asked to give their reason for supporting the senator, it's simple: the fact the candidate is their namesake could increase the town's revenue from tourism.

In America, we are experiencing some of the highest voter turnouts in decades for the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, Americans are relying on these insubstantial criteria just as much as their international counterparts. For example, some have argued Clinton has received a lot of support simply because of her gender. Others rationalize voting for Hillary on the basis that: "If we get Hillary, we get Bill."

Obama-maniacs are not exempt from criticism either. Recently, there was a collective national gasp when the president of the California branch of the NAACP expressed his support for Hillary Clinton. When confronted about their surprise, many revealed that they had simply assumed that Obama's race would give him unanimous support from African American voters. It's disappointing that so many Americans and internationals alike base their opinions on such meaningless things.

While some of us may remember childhood visits to Disneyland attractions like It's a Small World during our early years, we also may remember that during our childhood years we first came into contact with student government elections. As the 2008 presidential race proves, some things never change. The current race seems to resemble an elementary school popularity contest, where platforms are irrelevant and superficial qualities and affiliations trump actions.

It may be worrisome that onlookers from the outside world are using empty rationale for their support. But Americans are doing the same thing. In November, people around the world will follow American politics. Regardless, if we want to place the blame on a country when political matters go wrong, we better point fingers in front of the mirror.